On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Andy Lubel wrote: > Yeah its fun to see IBM compete with its OEM provider Netapp.
Yes, we had both IBM and Netapp out as well. I'm not sure what the point was... We do have some IBM SAN equipment on site, I suppose if we had gone with the IBM variant we could have consolidated support. > > sometimes it's more than just the raw storage... I wish I could just drop > > in a couple of x4500's and not have to worry about the complexity of > > clustering <sigh>... > > > zfs send/receive. If I understand correctly, that would be sort of a poor man's replication? So you would result with a physical copy on server2 of all of the data on server1? What would you do when server1 crashed and died? One of the benefits of a real cluster would be the automatic failover, and fail back when the server recovered. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
